Richard M. Stallman resigns

For what it's worth, I think it is a tragedy.

The man is an idealist who has stubbornly managed to hold on and thrive in a pragmatist's world.

There are too many claims to which he is a shining counterexample to the assertion that "Nobody really does that!"

So what if he's a bit of an odd duck? Show me a good programmer who doesn't have quirks! MIT is, in fact, famous for their tradition of living with, and embracing unconventional behavior, while still furthering the State-of-the-Art.

The Free Software Foundation, which has accrued greater and greater entrenchment and influence by non-free software makers and projects alike has always owed to Stallman at least a degree of toleration and begrudging due considering the movement basically started with him last I checked.

I read through the email chain in the Verge articles. It's enough even redacted to give me a solid enough basis from which to say there was nothing untoward about Stallman's posts. I got out of it a caution to read only into what was actually written down, and to avoid letting an unproven narrative whisk the entirety of a man's career away until all the facts were in. At a later point he even states he's read that poster's sources and was unable to locate any evidence conclusively saying that Minsky did anything against her knowingly, and if anything happened, while still being a crime, characterizing it as assault adds a layer of meaning to the accusation that is not immediately obvious from the presented evidence. He's even open to the possibility he hasn't seen something the emailed had, tried to find it, and asked if they'd be willing to send him a copy due to hos commitment to not trafficking services dependent on abusive practices.

If that gets you foisted on the stake these days, I think the Spirit of Salem must be blowing through Massachusets, and it's discovered the fires of the Internet burn hotter than any mere log.

I do not see a malicious intent or an attempt to defend/justify what may have happened to those women. Only an exhortation to not get ahead of what results the System has actually managed to discover as fact.

As the last poster in the email thread the Verge decided to post mentions, as Scientists, we must ask those pesky inconvenient questions which seem to so stifle the actions and catharsis of following our passions, and seek only to know the truth.

And from what I was able to read in the minutes I can dedicate,it is far from a sure thing, but misrepresentation off the character and context of the conversation has already spread like wildfire.

I hesitate to even post this, because to be honest, if people can turn Stallman of all people into a Pariah over just those two emails, heavens above, I'm not sure there are many others behind the cause who can say as honestly to have practiced what they preach to the degrees he has. What chance do the rest of us have? That is exactly the type of chilling effect that this type of behavior and manufactured outrage, combined with the uncertainty of knowing from whence it may come is so adept at propagating.

There is a point where hysteria, and the flames of the passions must stop. Ruining a person's life and reputation for anything more than what can be proven is one of them. That doesn't mean I'm trying to cover up harm, or protect pedophiles. It means I'm committed to the System, due process, and the tenets of rational scientific inquiry.

It is not appropriate that any person should be hung by any segment of the population for endorsing letting the chips fall where they will, or asking to have more compelling physical evidence provided.

The world post 1980 has seen more than anyone would like of wrongdoings not punished as thoroughly as they may needs be, but it is not in anyone's interest that the System be any looser in the Standard of Evidence to be met before officially taking action against someone. No one should want to let slip the Dogs of War in that regard, especially given the number of lives that have been given in ensuring a country existed where that was explicitly prevented at great effort from being possible.

Good luck, Richard. I pray you and the movement survive this without irreparable damage...but I'm not even sure the damage isn't already done.

I am dumbfounded anew every time I see a smart and analytical person twist themselves around to the point that they become too smart to believe in analysis. Saying Stallman was persecuted for "expressing ideas" is about as sophisticated as "my program crashed because the electrons were in the wrong place". You wouldn't be satisfied with an understanding that shallow in any other circumstance.

Meaning. Words have it. Questions have it. Ideas have it. "Etsy for houseplants" is an idea, as is "figuring out your home address from information available online and breaking in to your house tonight while you're sleeping". Why is one of them creepier than the other? I can't believe I'm being persecuted for just having ideas!

The meaning of Stallman's argument is that he doesn't think Minsky did anything wrong. Why doesn't he think Minsky did anything wrong? Probably because he was a friend, a good guy, a peer, who knows. Because of these entirely scientific feelings, he makes a series of arguments:

1. She only said she was directed to have sex with Minsky, not that she actually did

2. Even if she did say she had sex with Minsky, she may have been confused and answering the wrong question

3. Even if she did actually have sex with Minsky, she probably made it appear consensual

4. Even if she was not legally capable of consent, that is not morally equivalent to rape

5. Thus, it is "injustice" and "wrong" to say Minsky is accused of sexual assault

Is this your science? Is this the altar of rationality you're worried will be torn down by the rabid inquisitors of the new dark age? Because to me it sounds a lot more like The Dragon in My Garage. How far must our credulity stretch to believe that Minsky foresaw most of modern AI, only to fall for "hot willing 17-year-olds in your area"?

And how does a man like Stallman look at open source and see politics, look at dynamic linking and see politics, look at javascript and see politics – and look at science and see nothing but science? Like you, I do not believe Stallman is malicious. I believe he is naive. That is a fine quality in a revolutionary, but not in a leader.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Most likely, the real issue is he failed to know when to shut up about a sensitive topic after being basically told to shut up.

A crux of the issue is that men expect to be deferred to. They expect to have privilege and rights. They expect their views to be respected. They expect to have a right to express themselves.

And women generally cannot expect the same. Which is a foundation stone of what gets called "rape culture."

There are a lot of subtleties here and I'm sympathetic to some of Stallman's points, but I suspect the thing that people are bristling at is that his failure to shut up is a failure to genuinely respect the feelings and boundaries of women.

This is the real problem women face in life. This is the essence of the disregard that culminates in sexual harassment and rape.

Without that baseline fundamental respect, women have no choice but to quibble about bullshit details like legal age. Because it's all we've got to say "He shouldn't have done that to me" in a world that seems hell-bent on utterly ignoring baseline respect for women, especially when trying to demand it from a powerful and wealthy man.

Good luck with that sister. The exceptions are very few and far between.